I have avoided the subject untill now, but as an amature photographer that doesnt need the "stock managment" functionality of lightroom, is lightroom meant to replace photoshop as the leading photographers' *editing* tool ?

when thinking of upgrading photoshop what should i take into consideration between the two applications ? I am not sure what niche lightroom is suppose to fill exactly...

I think it has the potential to take over many of the things that PS does, but it is still primarily a file management tool. Although, I do find certain features (tonal curve, b/w conversion tool, etc) to be superior to what PS has. I'm hoping that some of these features will make it into the next version of Photoshop.

It lacks many of the tools PS has so unless you never se items like layers or cloning (just two examples out of many) you will still need PS.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While it's clear LR is not a photoshop replacement, it may well become so for manty photographers. PS is primarily a graphic artist application: photographers are something of an afterthought.

LR is not yet complete and it's not clear exactly what final tools will be included. To describe it as a file management programme is, I feel, to somewhat understate it's abilities.

At MR's recent seminar he made it clear that for almost all his work LR is more than adequate. PS is used primarily for the plug-ins he has found essential, such as PKS. Certainly there is (as yet) no sign that LR will have cloning etc. But when plug-ins are developed for it, will photographers really want to purchase PS when there may be cheaper applications provising the few PS tools they need?

It may well be that those who work hard to capture the image optimally in the first place will find LR all they will need.

I am simply very, very pleased that such applications as LR and Aperture - designed from the ground up for photographers - are becoming available.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wonder if a much cheaper application -- I'm thinking of Picture Window Pro -- combined with Photoshop, would be all that most people need. Norman Koren swears by the program, says it's everything a serious photographer needs. And the most expensive version is about $90. If Lightroom and PWP can be made to work well together, that might be all that most people would need. I say this as a guy who just spent $700 on a second CS2 because of the two-install limitation (I needed three.)

Disclaimer -- I don't have any connection with PWP, and haven't even used the program. I'm going on what Koren says here:

Based on what I've seen and read about Lightroom it is not a substitute for Photoshop unless you don't need about 80%~85% of Photoshop's image manipulation capabilities. However, Lightroom has several tools that look as if they have improved functinality relative to Photoshop CS2, so don't be surprised if they turn up in CS3 or 4! I think at present it is correct to view these programs as largely complementary rather than as substitutes.

What I've seen of Lightroom (limited to screen shots as I'm on windows), it seems there is a very natural break between it and Photoshop. Lightroom looks like a great tool for global image optimization. Photoshop then becomes a tool primarily targeting local corrections.

I have two fantacies: Adobe put enough cataloging capability into lightroom that I don't need a seperate DAM application, and Photoshop CS3 gets me Lightroom for the normal upgrade fee from CS2 to CS3.

Photoshop came out in 1990. It essentially hasn't changed since then in one respect, it's a single image tweaker used to edit at a pixel level. Sure, you have droplets and batching but it's crude. There are all kinds of imaging tasks that don't need us to open a full resolution file to conduct some work. That's the only way Photoshop can handle images. So imagine you have 100 RAW 22mp files that need some global tweaks. You could process (render) each one and open them in Photoshop to do this but it's slow going. Instead, imagine having an instruction set that tells an application "add this curve, crop, color adjustment" to each file. RAW files are not rendered images. Until you are ready to render them full resolution, a product like LightRoom, Aperture are simply showing you either a low rez proxy based on the instructions or a tiny portion of the full rez image. This can greatly speed up your workflow!

Look at printing. You have your 100 RAW files and you want to simply make a contact sheet. In Photoshop you must render each to a huge file, then gang them up to print. Lots of work. Take LightRoom. Gather the RAWs, tell it to gang them up to a contact sheet. LR only renders the data necessary to make these tiny thumbnails and it's sent to the printer. FAST!

Photographers need to look beyond how Photoshop has typically worked with digital images. It's a fantastic tool for doing all kinds of work you'll never accomplish in LightRoom. The opposite is true for these new products that deal with (primarily) RAW files.

Those of us working with Adobe don't want to see LR become Photoshop which to be honest has become pretty bloated over the years. I'm totally fine if LR never soft proofs CMYK or allows pixel editing. That's what Photoshop is for. But for a heck of a lot of image processing, Photoshop is the "wrong" tool since it's design was for a "one image at a time" fine tweaking.

I've been wondering about this myself. As far as the features in Photoshop CS2 go, I really only use a few for 90% of my photographs. After the RAW file has been opened it's a matter of doing levels adjustment, curves, brightness/contrast/saturation, Noise Ninja, and then a sRBG 8 bit .jpg conversion for the web.

It is very comforting to have all of the other tools available when they're needed, and I don't know that I'd feel totally comfortable with switching to a program that has relatively few features in it in comparison. I like knowing that I can easily do a soft proof, or that I have a handful of different ways to do a B&W conversion, or go wild with the clone stamp tool, or that I can manipulate and tweak individual pixels to my heart's content.

I, for one, wouldn't mind if LR became a full-featured photo suite on par with Photoshop's abilities, but without the bulk of other stuff that Photoshop is capable of.

I wonder if a much cheaper application -- I'm thinking of Picture Window Pro -- combined with Photoshop, would be all that most people need.

I think the combination would more naturally be Picture Window Pro and LightRoom. As an image editing program PWPro is excellent and I used it exclusively before finally moving to Photoshop. It has layout capabilities and templates not available in Photoshop, for instance, the same thing you pay so much for in ImagePrint.

True, Photoshop is the more versatile program; but to friends who are new to digital printing and are not the ardent hobbyists or pros most of us on this board are I always recommend PWPro as the starting point because the learning curve is so vastly easier and less daunting than Photoshop. For most people it is all they will ever need.

I think the combination would more naturally be Picture Window Pro and LightRoom. As an image editing program PWPro is excellent and I used it exclusively before finally moving to Photoshop. It has layout capabilities and templates not available in Photoshop, for instance, the same thing you pay so much for in ImagePrint.

In todays world of working on the road with your laptop, location shoots for stills and film, being restricted to a particular location for your files is ...... ancient and KLUDGY!!!!The next thing you know Adobe and Apple will want you to have 14inch platters to store data or .... PUNCH CARDS! AND only buy the cards from IBM!There are lots of thrid party programs and plug ins that are worlds ahead of Lightroom and Apature .... AND some are even FREE!!!!I am .... well more or less speachless.Just MHO.Tom

In todays world of working on the road with your laptop, location shoots for stills and film, being restricted to a particular location for your files is ...... ancient and KLUDGY!!!!The next thing you know Adobe and Apple will want you to have 14inch platters to store data or .... PUNCH CARDS! AND only buy the cards from IBM!There are lots of thrid party programs and plug ins that are worlds ahead of Lightroom and Apature .... AND some are even FREE!!!!I am .... well more or less speachless.Just MHO.Tom[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Um.. I think you need to take a closer look at Lightroom. Perhaps even use it. I'd be interested to know what free plugins and programs you are referring to that are "worlds ahead" as I have not seen anything that is close to LR or Aperture. Your complaint on closed storage system is valid as it relates to Aperture but not LR. You are missing a considerable point about LR. It's a beta and not finished yet.

Ah the following is from http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...room-tips.shtmlJust scroll down the page.+++++++++++++++==Beta One of Lightroom only allows there to be one Library active at a time, and has no ability (yet) to merge separate Libraries. This is problematic if you have both a desktop and a laptop computer. You come back from a shoot with your new shots having been worked on within Lightroom while on location, but have no way of using the laptop's Library as part of your main Library. What to do?

My solution was to move my Library to a small portable hard drive ( an 80GB Firelight ). This is now where my Lightroom Library lives, and will remain until a version of the program appears that is able to merge separate Libraries. It makes taking my entire Library with me at all times simple, and I plug the drive into whichever computer is needed at the time. Just make sure that each computer's copy of Lightroom points to the same external drive+++++++++++++++++++++The above referrs to LIGHTROOM .... unless they had a typeo or something. Or it was/is being corrrected in Beta2 .. ?One free program I use is RawShooter Essentials 2006. Simple yet effective handling of Raw. I will be getting the Pro version for it has more features and is still reasonable.ANDYes I know Lightroom is in developement and not done. It is sorta nice that Adobe is letting mere mortals as myself "pitch in" and "develope" the program, I mean after all it doesn't cost them anything, all this FREE input, it is the least they can do is not charge for it at this stage AND Apple charging dearly for their program, what is it? somethilng like $500.Did I miss something? Yes graphic artists use Photoshop, however as a photographer, IMHO photoshop has all but replaced by wet darkroom.Now if the powers that be can just agree on the raw format so that down the road I can still make "prints" from the electronic data.Meanwhile I still shoot as much film as I can, untill at least film goes the way of "stone Lithography" and only used by "fine artists", on important money jobs.Now don't get be entirely wrong. I really like the new technology. I can do things with my photos that was either IMPOSSIBLE or VERY difficult and TIME consuming to do.Masking, dodging, burning, zone system, intensifying, all have been around since the start of photography, only now it is much easier and faster to do. I plan to be a working photographer untill I end up as dust under someone bed.Oh another program that was free at first, (you can still find it in a used book store if you are lucky and the cd is still attached) was the forrunner of Genuine Fractals up rezing and have (more or less) loss-less compression.The very best thing about Photoshop is the feature of plug-ins.Cheers,Tom

In todays world of working on the road with your laptop, location shoots for stills and film, being restricted to a particular location for your files is ...... ancient and KLUDGY!!!!

Miamitom,

I think the wording of your post is a bit confusing. It seems you are concerned about the lcation of the files, which is why 61Dynamic responded referring to the fact that LR gives you a choice.

In fact, I think you are concerned about sharing libraries, as detailed by MR in your last post. In a couple of forums that I visit the LR guys seem committed to fixing this, but of course do not say whether this will the case in the full Ver 1 of the app.

Pelao,Well, I guess that is one of the reasons I don't do betas, and this is a beta.I sorta gather this is a database with some "photoshop" stuff and since I do not deal in stock or stock sale, just one assignment at a time, so far I have not seen a need for a data base.Tom